Riemannian geometry-based metrics to measure and reinforce user performance changes during brain-computer interface user training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite growing interest and research into brain-computer interfaces (BCI), their usage remains limited outside of research laboratories. One reason for this is BCI inefficiency, the phenomenon where a significant number of potential users are unable to produce machine-discernible brain signal patterns to control the devices. To reduce the prevalence of BCI inefficiency, some have advocated for novel user-training protocols that enable users to more effectively modulate their neural activity. Important considerations for the design of these protocols are the assessment measures that are used for evaluating user performance and for providing feedback that guides skill acquisition. Herein, we present three trial-wise adaptations (running, sliding window and weighted average) of Riemannian geometry-based user-performance metrics (classDistinct reflecting the degree of class separability and classStability reflecting the level of within-class consistency) to enable feedback to the user following each individual trial. We evaluated these metrics, along with conventional classifier feedback, using simulated and previously recorded sensorimotor rhythm-BCI data to assess their correlation with and discrimination of broader trends in user performance. Analysis revealed that the sliding window and weighted average variants of our proposed trial-wise Riemannian geometry-based metrics more accurately reflected performance changes during BCI sessions compared to conventional classifier output. The results indicate the metrics are a viable method for evaluating and tracking user performance changes during BCI-user training and, therefore, further investigation into how these metrics may be presented to users during training is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".